My school has had an exciting journey over the last year. It’s a tale that may resonate with you or inspire you. It’s a story of how mindsets and attitudes can shift when evidence emerges that there is a better way to teach our students.
 
This tale began a decade ago, and the first mindset that needed to change was my own. When I started teaching, my understanding of dyslexia was ill-informed. I thought it was an almost mythical, vague umbrella term for anyone who struggled to read. I now know better and look back with guilt at how naive I was.
 
I remember teaching my first class as a graduate teacher. This class of 8 and 9 year-olds included one student who was very much a beginner reader. I quickly realised that I didn’t have the knowledge to teach someone how to read from scratch, despite completing a four-year Bachelor of Education. I thought that there should be a systematic way to teach a beginner reader. Instead, I was left struggling to teach her, and she was left struggling to read. I regret that I didn’t provide this child with the instruction that she needed.
 
After teaching in Melbourne, Australia, I moved to a remote community in the Northern Territory. There I worked with some of the most disadvantaged children in Australia, predominantly Indigenous Australians. For most of my students, English was their second (or third) language. The teachers I worked with were some of the most passionate and hardest working individuals I’ve met.
 
While I was in the Northern Territory we started to teach English using Direct Instruction programmes as part of the Australian Government’s Flexible Literacy in Remote Primary Schools Program. This approach was unlike anything I had used before. Teachers were provided with a script that built language and literacy skills systematically. More importantly, we received some excellent training and instructional coaching. My own knowledge and skills in teaching reading and writing improved dramatically during this period, as did my ability to mentor and support others.
 
The importance of a consistent and sequential programme cannot be understated. Teacher retention was a significant issue, and it was not uncommon for students to have several classroom teachers in a year. Using Direct Instruction programmes helped ensure that our students continued on their learning trajectories despite changing teachers.
 
I remember being awestruck when students were able to identify the ‘predicate’ and ‘subject’ of a sentence. I didn’t know what these terms meant, let alone explain them to students and other teachers! I relished listening to students read a rich tapestry of stories, including classics like the Trojan Horse. It was incredible to see these students being successful in the face of multiple challenges.
 
The use of Direct Instruction as part of the Flexible Literacy in Remote Primary Schools Program was found to have a radical impact on the growth of Very Remote Indigenous schools.
“In contrast, our analysis shows a 124% growth for Very Remote Indigenous schools involved in Flexible Literacy from 2015 to 2017 while growth in the same period was 19 and 34% for all Australian and Very Remote Indigenous schools, respectively.” (Pearson, 2020, p8)
 
I relocated to be closer to family at the birth of my second child. I got a job at a school in central Victoria which was entrenched in ‘balanced literacy’. Balanced literacy assumes that reading is a natural skill that is learnt through exposure to books and minimal explicit teaching. The school had just invested in Fountas & Pinnell’s Levelled Literacy Intervention and were using this as the intervention programme. This program encourages students to learn words as whole units and provides predictable readers. Children are encouraged to make guesses rather than use knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences to decode accurately. Despite adopting a balanced literacy approach, the school still managed to get ‘good’ results. We are fortunate that our students come from families that love them, support them and surround them with rich language experiences before beginning school. However, some students continued to fail to pick up the skills they needed to become readers. And while this number was ‘acceptable’ in respect to our data; it wasn’t acceptable in terms of the devastating impact that this could have on a child’s life.
 
My new school’s approach of balanced literacy ran counter to my recent experience of using Direct Instruction. One of the common posters in the school highlighted the strategy of “looking at the picture” to decode a word. I dealt with this tension by doing my best to provide quality teaching while ticking the boxes that the school required. I’m proud to say that no one in my class was told to look at a picture when trying to decode. I also built positive relationships with other staff members and started planting seeds that there could be a more effective way to teach literacy.
 
Last year, I accepted the role of Literacy Leader at the school and put my experience and knowledge in teaching literacy to the test. In front of me was the seemingly monumental task of changing our school’s practices to better support all of our students in their reading journey.
 
It turns out that a global pandemic is a great time to convince others that change is needed. In April and May, Victoria underwent its first COVID19 lockdown and schools went to a ‘remote learning’ model. Not having to commute to work, I used the time to dive into the research around the ‘Science of Reading’.
“The body of work referred to as ‘the science of reading’ is not an ideology, a philosophy, a political agenda, a one-size-fits-all approach, a program of instruction, or a specific component of instruction. It is the emerging consensus from many related disciplines, based on literally thousands of studies, supported by hundreds of millions of research dollars, conducted across the world in many languages. These studies have revealed a great deal about how we learn to read, what goes wrong when students don’t learn, and what kind of instruction is most likely to work the best for the most students.” (Moats, 2019)
 
I was able to see how this body of research supported what I had learnt through my experience of Direct Instruction regarding how students learn and how teachers can best support students to learn how to read. All I had to do now was convince my principal and my colleagues that our school needed to change direction in our literacy programme.
 
When face-to-face classes returned in May, I arranged a conversation with my principal about why we should change our approach to teaching literacy to align with the Science of Reading. I thought this was going to be a difficult conversation. I made sure that I had done my research and collated my key talking points. This included the importance of explicitly teaching the six pillars of: oral language, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. I was nervous heading into this meeting and worried about the very real possibility of being told ‘no’, especially given the recent investment that the school had made in Levelled Literacy Intervention kits.
 
However, like many ‘difficult conversations’, it wasn’t as difficult as I thought it would be. My principal could see that some students were continuing to fall through the gaps of our instruction. She recognised that our literacy programme could improve and has arranged the necessary resources to do so. Instead of the ‘no’ that I feared, I received an affirming ‘YES’! I am fortunate to have an incredible principal who can listen to research and is willing to adopt new evidence-based approaches.
 
My next step was to start implementing a stronger Science of Reading approach in my classroom. I began by implementing a phonemic awareness programme. Lindsay Kemeny brilliantly outlined the what, why, and how of phonemic awareness in her article Phonemic Awareness: Where do I start? in the first issue of Dystinct. If you haven’t read this, then you should! Phonemic awareness is how we blend, segment, and manipulate the sounds in spoken language.
“Many children with reading difficulties lack phonemic awareness.” (Kilpatrick, 2013, p.14)
 
I started implementing a programme called Heggerty’s Phonemic Awareness with my Grade 1/2 class as there were some lessons available to support schools doing remote learning. I could see the benefit it would have for my weaker readers. What shocked me was the skills that my ‘strong’ readers were missing: many couldn’t reliably rhyme or accurately identify initial sounds in words. Explicit teaching helped, and within a couple of weeks these lessons were humming along. Every child was achieving success.
So, of course, I invited my principal to observe. And she quickly got every other staff member to watch one of these lessons. We ordered the books so that all classes from Foundation- Grade 3 could begin implementing the program.
 
It was crucial that I could share my knowledge with other staff, so I ran a Professional Learning series on the Science of Reading. Initially, we explored the Simple View of Reading which is a formula presented by Gough & Tunmer (1986) that: Decoding x Language Comprehension = Reading Comprehension. We investigated how oral language, comprehension, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary and fluency are all essential components in being able to read. We then started to hone in on how we could effectively teach phonemic awareness, as people were inspired by the success I was having in my classroom.
And then Victoria had its second COVID-19 lockdown.
However, the Grade 1/2 classes continued to deliver online phonemic awareness lessons every day of the second lockdown (which lasted from July-October). I’m still getting comments from parents who I think were equally amused and impressed about “chopping sounds” (usually with grandiose gestures).
The Grade 1/2 team also started sending out decodable readers in our remote learning packs. These allowed us to focus on particular letter-sound combinations. It might seem like an outrageous expense to provide books that we might not get back. However, thanks to https://www.speldsa.org.au/, we were able to access and use free printable versions.
 
When we returned to school in Term 4 we hit the ground running. We rolled out Heggerty’s Phonemic Awareness in the Foundation & Grade 3 classes. I ran further professional learning on teaching phonics systematically and synthetically.
 Our school ordered a heap of decodable readers. And we got rid of the ‘reading strategies’ posters that told children to look at pictures instead of words!
 
I have been overwhelmed by how my colleagues have embraced our new approach. It’s not easy changing things that we’ve been doing for years (and for some, decades), but everyone is eager to learn more. They genuinely want to do what is best for their students and are going out of their way to give them the best possible education. What surprised me most was that the colleagues that I thought would be reluctant to change are amongst the most enthusiastic about our new approach.
 
This year, we are continuing to focus on embedding our teaching of phonemic awareness & phonics (synthetically & systematic) with the support of our decodable books. We are shifting our comprehension instruction to support a content-rich curriculum. We’re beginning to explicitly teach vocabulary and look at the morphology and etymology of words in detail. It is a lot to work on, and I’m mindful not to overwhelm teachers. I am finding it a delicate balance to take small steps quickly, without rushing.
 
In particular, our new approach is providing our graduate teachers with the guidance and training that they need. I am in awe of how they cater for all of their students. The clarity of our programs means that the quality of their instruction is excellent. I wish that I had this level of support when I started teaching.
 
I held a parent information session outlining how our school is now teaching literacy. The comments from parents have been overwhelmingly supportive with many starting to see the benefits. We have employed an experienced tutor to work with small groups of students who need extra support.
 
One highlight was a recent conversation with a family whose child is presenting with dyslexia. The psychologist who prepared the report made a number of recommendations. It was such a positive experience to inform the family that we had already started to adopt the suggested strategies and approaches!
 
My school has a long road ahead to ensure that every child gets the literacy instruction they deserve. But we have made a strong start. Our staff are on board, our parents are supportive, and our students are eager to learn!
 
References
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Kilpatrick, D. (2013) Equipped for Reading Success.
 
Moats, L. (2019, Oct 16) Of ‘Hard Words’ and Straw Men: Let’s Understand what Reading Science is Really About. Accessed from https://www.voyagersopris.com/blog/edview360/2019/10/16/lets-understand-what-reading-science-is-really-about
 
Pearson, N. (2020). Yes, DI did it: the impact of Direct Instruction on literacy outcomes for Very Remote Indigenous schools. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2020.20
​

​Writing is taught in every primary classroom across Australia. Writing teachers aim to create capable and confident writers. But how do teachers define good writing? What do students see as good writing? This paper explores the concept of writing and what factors contribute to effective writing. The tension between viewing writing as a process and writing as a product is scrutinised, identifying a need to find a balance between these ideas. Given the subjective nature of writing, any definition of good writing needs to consider the participants involved. The perceptions of twenty-two children aged 6-8 years-old are examined through the use of a writing interview based on the Burke Reading Interview (Bean, 2010). These beliefs and attitudes are considered using a qualitative content analysis approach and then compared to those of their writing teacher. Gaining a deeper understanding of students’ perceptions on writing has implications on the teacher’s practice and some of these are outlined.
Key Terms: Writing, Primary Students, Perspectives, Primary Teachers

​It was a typical writing session in my Grade 1/2 class. Students were busy writing narratives, focusing on creating engaging introductions. They had pencil to paper and were engaged in the activity; except one boy. He was sitting, staring straight ahead. Tears were beginning to stream down his face. Quietly, I walked over to him to see what was wrong. I asked him to read his work (Figure 1). I told him that he had created a very engaging opening. “I thought you’d be angry,” was his response. “Why?” I enquired.  “Because I hadn’t written enough.” He was worried about the length of his writing; I was pleased with how he had achieved the set task.

The next day, another student came to me. He was bursting with pride. “I must be the best writer in the class!” he declared. “Oh?” was my careful response. He proclaimed, “I’ve written over four pages!” It was true. While his opening was interesting, it was followed by over four pages that I had to struggle to decode, with absent spaces between words, most words misspelt, letters reversed, ideas unfinished or repeated multiple times, and absent punctuation.

Both of these students held the idea that a long piece of writing was a good piece of writing. Is this an idea that I am unknowingly promoting to my class of 22 Grade 1/2 students? These incidents caused me to pause and reflect critically. What is good writing? What are the perspectives of my students? What is my own view?

What exactly is good writing? This is a complex question as literacy is essential in life. Our understanding of literacy, and the interdependent aspects of oral language, reading, and writing, are constantly evolving. Understandings of writing often focus on the emphasis between writing as a product and writing as a process (Bearne, Chamberlain, Cremin & Mottram, 2016). These two contrasting ideas provide a backdrop to a wider exploration of teacher and student perceptions on what good writing is.

Through the use of a writing interview, based on the Burke Reading Interview, the perceptions of my students and myself are examined (Bean, 2010; Reutzel & Sabey, 1996). This builds on the limited field of research into children’s understandings of good writing. More importantly, it allows me to reflect critically on my own understandings including how I teach writing.

​What is literacy?
Being literate is essential for success in life (Hinchman & Goatley, 2012). At its core, being literate is about how we interact with each other and gain a better understanding of the world (Gee, 1991). Literacy enables us to critique and analyse ideas and feelings (Luke & Freebody, 1999). Our understanding of literacy is informed by our identity, culture and context (Williams, 2005). Literacy involves the interplay of oral language, reading, and writing in order to create meaning and communicate (Freebody, Chan & Barton, 2013). Literacy is a fluid concept that is constantly evolving, as evidenced in the emergence of new technologies and multiliteracies (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017).
Interdependence between reading, writing, and oral language
Reading, writing, and oral language are interdependent and strongly linked (Korth et al., 2016). Oral language underpins all literacy (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). Talk is essential in articulating the demands, skills, and art of both reading and writing (Bearne et al., 2016). While writing is grounded in oral language, it is nurtured through reading (Bean, 2010; Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). Reading is necessary for students to become familiar with the features of texts (Bearne et al., 2016). Students need to read to a wide variety of well-crafted texts (Hawthorne, 2002). This allows opportunities for students to study examples of written texts that demonstrate the craft of writing. Being a writer runs parallel to being a reader (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). How students learn to read, and their understanding of the process, is well researched (Korth et al., 2016; Wray, 1993). Meanwhile, the research on early writing instruction is limited, and there has recently been a decline in the amount of research in writing (Korth et al., 2016).
Writing is a process and a product
Being able to write is an essential skill for life. Writing allows us to communicate our thoughts, feelings, and ideas with each other (Jeter, 2016; Naumen, Stirling & Borthwick, 2011).  There is no single definition of what exactly is good writing, yet it should be grounded in the real world and be relevant to both the writer and reader (Jeter, 2016; Naumen, Stirling & Borthwick, 2011; Schmidt, 2012). Writing can be seen as a product where the focus is on the mechanics of producing a text. Important mechanical elements of writing include legibility, punctuation, and spelling (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017; Wray, 1993). Writing is not just the product but is also the process where ideas are generated, words are selected, and creativity nurtured (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). Writing allows us to convey our identity; it allows us to represent who we are (Bearne et al., 2016). The tension between the product and the process of writing needs to be navigated to develop a deeper understanding of what comprises good writing.
There are a variety of skills that need to be controlled in order to be successful writers (Sulak, 2018). Mechanical skills, such as spelling, punctuation, and neatness, are important when writing (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017; Wray, 1993). Limited aptitude in the mechanics of writing can be a barrier to good writing and can reduce the ideas that are being generated (Ferrari, Bouffard & Rainville, 1998; Korth et al., 2016). However, writers need to progress beyond the mechanics to develop more expressive writing (Wray, 1993).
Good writers are able to explain the process they use to create a text (Bean, 2010). They can articulate how compositional elements emerge in their writing (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017; Wray, 1993). Writers should be able to discuss how they generated ideas, why they chose particular words, and how this creates their voice (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). Good writing is subjective and dependent on the audience (Jeter, 2016; Naumen, Stirling, Borthwick, 2011).
 
How is writing taught?
It is important for writing teachers to be skilled in the craft of writing and the teaching of writing (Bearne et al., 2016). Research on how teachers value writing is limited, as is our understanding of how teachers’ beliefs influence their practice (Korth et al., 2016). One recent study showed that nearly half of writing teachers don’t believe that they use their writing skills outside of school (Sulak, 2018). Teachers need to examine their beliefs and how those are being communicated to their students, especially given the differing perspectives that teachers hold on what constitutes good writing (Bean, 2010; Naumen, Stirling & Borthwick, 2011). Teachers often focus on the mechanical skills that are involved in being a good writer (Korth et al., 2016). These skills are usually explicitly taught to students (Mathers, Benson & Newton, 2006). Students must have a good understanding of the mechanical elements of writing; however this needs to be complemented by comprehension of the compositional process (Bearne et al., 2016; Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017).
Teachers generally want students to value and love writing and be confident writers (Korth et al., 2016). In order to create good writers, teachers must build on students’ prior literary knowledge (Hinchman & Goatley, 2012). Teachers need to know what children think about writing and work towards a common definition of what is good writing (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). To understand students’ ideas about writing, teachers need to have ongoing conversations with their students about writing (Bean, 2010; Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017).
What does research say about students’ understanding of good writing?
There is considerably less research about children’s perceptions of writing than there is about reading (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). To understand and improve writing, it is essential to understand children’s perceptions of writing (Wray, 1993).
While students come to school with knowledge about writing, their understandings of what is good writing are shaped significantly by their teachers’ beliefs (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017; Hinchman & Goately, 2012; Wray, 1993). Students become aware of what their teachers’ beliefs about writing are; yet can be frustrated by the need to guess what each teacher expects in writing (Bean, 2010; Naumen, Stirling & Borthwick, 2011). Teachers need to articulate not just their expectations around writing, but also their beliefs about what is good writing (Naumen, Stirling & Borthwick, 2011).
Children tend to focus on the mechanical elements of writing (Wray, 1993). Elements such as neatness, spelling, and length feature heavily in research around what students believe is good writing (Bearne et al., 2016; Schmidt, 2012). Many students believe that good writing must be free from mechanical errors (Jeter, 2016). Focusing on the mechanical elements of writing can lead to students becoming more reluctant to write (Hawthorne, 2002). Students viewing writing as a product has been found consistently in research over the last thirty years. When asked about the first thing that their writing teacher is looking for, 11-year-olds overwhelmingly responded with mechanical skills (Wray, 1993). Only 12% of students responded that their teachers first looked at compositional elements of their writing (Wray, 1993). When 7 to 11-year-old students were asked to write a letter to a younger student about writing, mechanical elements were highlighted more than twice as often as compositional features (Wray, 1993). There is some evidence that as students become older, their focus shifts from predominantly mechanical aspects towards a balance between mechanical and compositional features (Wray, 1993).
Children have difficulty talking about the compositional aspects of their writing development, except in broad terms (Wray, 1993). Students recognise that good writers need creativity and imagination (Bearne et al., 2016). However, articulating how they can become more creative or imaginative in their writing is difficult for students. This is often linked to the need for the teacher to adequately model the strategies that writers use in the craft, as well as the mechanics of writing (Hawthorne, 2002).
Students who are seen by their teachers as competent writers have different conversations about the writing process than their peers who are not perceived to be as competent (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). Students who are identified as good writers receive feedback from their teachers that focuses on compositional aspects of writing. Students who are viewed as weak writers receive feedback that highlights errors in the writing process, usually on the mechanical elements of writing (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). The positive feedback that teachers give their students is crucial to the students’ perceptions of their writing ability (Hawthorne, 2002; Korth et al., 2016).
The influence of teacher feedback on students’ writing has been explored (Wray, 1993). It is also important to consider the impact of the feedback that students receive from their peers. Students receive a lot of feedback from their peers and this can create relevance for them (Hattie, 2012; Hawthorne, 2002). Relevance can help minimise the feeling of disconnection between home and school writing (Wray, 1993). However, feedback from peers can sometimes be ineffective and potentially detrimental to student learning (Hattie, 2012). Students need to be taught explicitly how to give effective feedback to their peers (Peterson & Portier, 2014).
Younger students tend to say that they enjoy writing more than older students (Clark, 2018). Feelings of anxiety when writing can lead to students who are reluctant to write (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). There is a link between a child’s perceived ability and their enjoyment in writing (Jeter, 2016). Students who are reluctant to write often hold negative beliefs about their writing ability (Hawthorne, 2002).  Children who are reluctant to write often focus on the mechanical aspects of writing (Hawthorne, 2002). Students’ confidence in writing is linked to their ability to generate ideas in writing (Schmidt, 2012).
There is a gender divide in attitudes towards writing (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017). The National Literacy Trust (Clark, 2018) has consistently found that boys identify themselves as not being good at writing more frequently than girls (Clark, 2018). Boys are also twice as likely to dislike writing compared to girls (Bearne et al., 2016). Boys are more reluctant to write than girls (Hawthorne, 2002).
Literacy leadership
Literacy leaders need to be a model & support for all teachers (Bearne et al., 2016). They are also responsible for leading improvement (Thomas, 2008). Literacy leaders need to have a deep understanding of what literacy is and how to effectively teach the content to students (Bearne et al., 2016). While there is no definitive definition of good writing, literacy leaders need to ensure that there is a shared understanding across the school (Bean, 2010; Naumen, Stirling & Borthwick, 2011). Literacy leaders need to acknowledge the wide variety of literacy practices that teachers and students bring with them (Hinchman & Goatley, 2012). Taking this range of discourses into account, literacy leaders are responsible for ensuring a consistent approach to the teaching of writing (Bean, 2010). 

Procedure
What is good writing? In order to uncover students’ perceptions, it was obvious to ask them. I interviewed my students about their writing practices, strategies, and beliefs. This interview adapted the questions of the Burke Reading Interview, which queries participants on their attitudes, beliefs, and strategies about reading (Bean, 2010; Reutzel & Sabey, 1996). The Adapted Writing Interview explores similar ideas about students’ perceptions of writing. I added a question that explicitly asked students whether they enjoy writing, to explore the link between perceived ability and enjoyment (Jeter, 2016).  Good writers can articulate how and why they write (Ferrari, Bouffard & Rainville, 1998). There is limited research on students’ perceptions of writing, especially students as young as six (Bearne et al., 2016).  The Adapted Writing Interview allows students to articulate how they write. It also allows me to understand better how the students’ definitions of writing compare to my own (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017; Schmidt, 2012). I am conscious that there is a limitation in the writing teacher conducting the interview, as it may have influenced students’ answers (Wray, 1993). However, being a familiar person to the students can help to ensure mutual trust in the process (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). It also allowed me to reflect on students’ responses immediately. The Adapted Writing Interview is a standardised open-ended interview, with students being asked the same series of questions in the same order. This approach allows each student’s answers to be compared to others and allows trends to be examined (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000).
 

The ten questions of the Adapted Writing Interview revealed fascinating insights into students’ understandings about writing. The responses to each of the ten questions and the trends are discussed here.
Question 1. Do you ever have trouble when you are writing? What do you do? Do you ever do anything else

n overwhelming majority of students identified that they encountered difficulty when writing (eight students responded ‘yes;’ nine students responded “sometimes”). Given the age of students, it could be expected that more students would say that they encountered difficulty. Only one student was unable to identify a strategy to attempt when they had trouble. Interestingly, this student was one who responded ‘yes’ when asked if they encountered difficulty. The most common strategies were to ask a peer, focus on spelling (e.g. “sound it out”), and ask a teacher. The emphasis on spelling seems to suggest that students view good writing as error-free (Jeter, 20116).

Question 2. Who is a good writer you know? What makes them a good writer

Most students (n=17) identified a peer as a good writer. This makes sense of the common strategy identified in Question 1 to ask a peer. The remaining five good writers identified were parents (n=3), the teacher (n=1), and a published author (n=1). These five adults were responsible for the three responses of ‘creating text products’ (e.g. “He wrote a card for my mum”). Otherwise, the traits that make someone a good writer didn’t depend on whether they were a peer or an adult. Three traits focus on the compositional elements of writing (vocabulary, creates text products, and ideas) and represent 25% of responses. This means that mechanical traits are the focus of 75% of responses. This is similar to existing findings on children’s understanding of good writing (Bearne et al., 2016; Clark, 2018; Wray, 1993).

Question 3. Do you think they ever have trouble when they write? If yes: What do you think they do when they have trouble when writing? If no: Suppose they trouble when writing, what do you think they would do about it?

Students recognised that good writers use similar strategies to those they use themselves. However, only twelve students thought that good writers have trouble writing. Asking a teacher/adult and asking a peer remained popular strategies. There was a decrease in the number of responses concerning spelling, although this may be because some students believe that good writers do not make spelling errors.
​
Question 4. If you know someone is having trouble writing, how would you help that person

The emphasis that students place on the mechanics of writing is evident when students were asked how they would help someone having trouble. Almost 60% of the responses (n=13) focused on spelling correctly. Two students focused on compositional elements of writing (vocabulary choice and ideas). Two students gave no response and an additional two students’ responses were vague (e.g. “I’ll help them”). Students are more likely to be unable to articulate how they can help someone than they are to assist them in the compositional elements of writing. This has significant ramifications, given that asking a peer was identified as the most common strategy when students have difficulty writing. When students have trouble, they will either focus on their spelling or ask another student who will most likely focus on their spelling.
​
Question 5. What would a teacher do to help that person?

Once more, the responses of students were overwhelmingly focused on spelling.  This reinforces the idea that students’ understanding of good writing is heavily concerned with the mechanics of writing. This reiterates that students believe that good writing is about producing a text that is free from errors, especially spelling mistakes. Because this question focused on students’ beliefs about what the teacher would do, it has implications on my practice.
 
Question 6. How did you learn to write?

Students acknowledged the role that school and home play in teaching writing. They also identified that learning to write takes practice. Interestingly, two students identified the important connection between reading and writing. One student identified the role of peers in learning to write and another recognised her speech therapist’s impact. Six students discussed how they learnt letters before they learnt words, perhaps suggesting an emphasis on phonetic awareness.
​
Question 7. What would you like to do better as a writer?

The areas in which students wish to improve are dominated by the mechanics of writing. Neatness, length, spelling, punctuation and the idea of error-free writing all gained multiple mentions. Interestingly, almost a quarter of students indicated that they would like to improve at creating text products. This reflects the observations in question 2, where three students chose someone who creates text products as their good writer. Students are focused on writing as a product, rather than a process.
​
Question 8. Do you think you are a good writer? Why or why not?

Over 90% of students identify themselves as a good writer. One student wasn’t sure about their ability, leaving only one child claiming that they were not a good writer. Again, the mechanics of writing dominated responses, along with the viewpoint of writing as a product. This is emphasised by the focus on neatness. Interestingly, only two students identified spelling as a factor in determining whether they were a good writer. This is in contrast to the strong focus students place on spelling when they encounter difficulties in writing. The student who identified as not a good writer was female. This is interesting as males are more likely to identify as being poor writers and the sample interviewed was predominantly male (Chamberlain & Kerrigan-Draper, 2017; Clark, 2018; Bearne et al., 2016).
 
Question 9. Do you think I (the writing teacher) am a good writer? Why or why not?

All students interviewed stated that I was a good writer. This could be influenced by the fact that I was the one conducting the interviews. Students acknowledged my experience as the dominant factor in my ability to write well. This includes perceived time spent practising, as well as the idea that I am a good writer because I am an adult. The mechanics of writing were still evident in students’ perceptions with neatness, spelling, speed and error-free being important factors. There is a slight shift towards writing as a process as students named the compositional elements of style, vocabulary, and ideas as being important factors in my ability to write. Students believe I am a good writer primarily because of my experience, but also because of the balance that I have between writing as a process and a product.

Question 10. Do you enjoy writing? Why or why not?

​This question revealed that almost all the students interviewed enjoyed writing. In considering their enjoyment, it seems that mechanical elements were put to the side and students focused on writing as a process. The idea that writing is fun was the most common response. Four students articulated their perception of writing as a challenge. Of these four students, one saw this in a negative light, while three saw challenge as a positive aspect. Three students articulated that writing is about expressing ideas and another two students highlighted how writing helps them develop their vocabulary. Interestingly, three students spoke about the physical element of writing (e.g. “It hurts your fingers”). I added this question to the Adapted Writing Interview as used by Bean (2010) to explore the link between perceptions around ability and enjoyment. The single student who identified herself as a poor writer was also one of the two who stated that they do not enjoy writing. This supports the idea that there is a link between a student’s enjoyment and their perceived ability (Hawthorne, 2002). Students see good writers as those that enjoy writing.

Conducting the Adapted Writing Interview with my class was an illuminating experience. It highlighted the importance of the teacher in establishing the students’ definitions of good writing. My students place a clear emphasis on the mechanics of writing and they are starting to consider the compositional elements of the craft of writing. Overall, my students enjoy writing and this is something to harness and build on. My students also identified peers as a valuable resource in the classroom and I need to reflect on how I can better cultivate this.  I also need to consider how the knowledge gained from interviewing my class could benefit the whole school while being mindful of the limitations of the study.

Good writing is error-free
 My students believe that good writing is error-free. This is seen in their focus on the mechanics of writing. In their eyes, good writing is neat, spelt correctly, and properly punctuated. My students want to create text products that display a command of the mechanics of writing. I believe that control of the mechanical elements of writing is a crucial part of good writing, but it is only one part. I need to continue to give students the opportunities to practise the mechanical elements of writing, but also need to help them become more aware of the compositional components of the writing craft (Korth et al., 2016).

Good writing is creative and imaginative
Some of my students identified the importance of having good ideas in writing. They acknowledged the need for developing their vocabulary. My students recognised that good writers are creative and have style. However, they had difficulty articulating how they could be more creative in their own work. I need to ensure that I explicitly model and teach strategies for generating ideas and developing a voice in writing. I need to provide students with time to practise the compositional elements of the writing and celebrate their achievements with them (Hinchman & Goatley, 2012). They also need to be given the space to enjoy writing.

Good writing is enjoyable
My students overwhelmingly enjoy writing. Although they are usually focused on the mechanics of writing, the compositional elements are the ones that bring them joy. This reinforces the need for me to provide my students time to engage in this aspect of the writing process. While it is typical for younger students to enjoy writing, I need to nurture their love of writing so that they can continue to be confident and capable writers (Clark, 2018; Schmidt, 2012).

Good writing is helped by peers
My students use their peers as an essential resource. They are more likely to ask each other for assistance than ask me. They may also give each other feedback more frequently than I can provide it (Hattie, 2012). I need to develop my students’ capacities to provide feedback to each other focusing on both the mechanical and compositional components of writing. My students need to know how to ask for feedback and how to give it to others (Peterson & Portier, 2014).
​
Good writing is discovery
My students enjoy the challenge of writing. They enjoy learning new things. My students want to improve their ability to spell, use new words, punctuate more accurately, and generate new ideas. My students are eager to be guided into the unknown so that they can emerge as better writers. Interestingly, the notion of multiliteracies did not emerge in the students’ responses. This demonstrates a clear need for me to guide them into this space of new literacies. This is important because my students need to be prepared for the evolving demands of literacy (Walsh, 2011)
​
Limitations
I acknowledge that this study was focused solely on one Grade 1/2 class. 22 students and one teacher is a very limited sample size. The demographics of the student population make it difficult to generalise beyond this setting. This study focused on the Adapted Writing Interview as the prime data source. In order to validate the findings of this study, more data sources should ideally be used. Future studies should explore the perceptions of an entire school, including all students and teachers. This could potentially lead to a more consistent whole-school understanding of what good writing is.  

​My understanding of my students’ perspectives on writing has altered through the interviewing process. I now know which of my students identify themselves as good writers. More crucially, I know why they believe that they are good writers. I have a deeper understanding of the strategies that they use. I also have gained insight into how they define good writing. Through this process, I have adjusted my understanding of what good writing is, and actively reflected on how my teaching practice needs to evolve to better reflect this. I now ensure that I emphasise the teaching of the compositional elements, such as idea generation, and provide students with plenty of opportunities to develop these skills. Interviewing students about their beliefs and attitudes towards writing is often overlooked. However, it is a powerful instrument to develop more confident and capable writers. All writing teachers should examine the potential benefits that a writing interview could provide.